(03-03-2019, 01:44 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Quick note as this seems to be a common misconception, bite force studies don't usually involve an animal actually biting. The measurements are based on skull morphometrics such as the area of the masseteric fossa. In other words, all animals studied are dead and their dry bones are simply being measured. The equipment includes a caliper, maybe a CT scanner, and a computer, no pressure sensors involved.

(07-24-2019, 06:06 PM)GreenGrolar Wrote: Honestly, polar bear bites are severely underrated in general. Correct me if I am wrong.

(07-24-2019, 06:32 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(07-24-2019, 06:06 PM)GreenGrolar Wrote: Honestly, polar bear bites are severely underrated in general. Correct me if I am wrong.

In general I think, that many people don´t understand one simple rule. The bigger the animal is, the stronger is also the bite. Some exceptions can be, but in general it´s pretty easy to understand, that if one animal has twice as big head as another, bigger one bites stronger :)

Naturally shorter snout helps to get more power to canines/front teeth when biting. And naturally if we compare muscles of jaguar and leopard, it´s easy to understand, that jaguar has clearly stronger bite even when there are two same sized individuals overall.

(09-06-2019, 07:00 PM)GreenGrolar Wrote:

(07-24-2019, 06:32 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(07-24-2019, 06:06 PM)GreenGrolar Wrote: Honestly, polar bear bites are severely underrated in general. Correct me if I am wrong.

In general I think, that many people don´t understand one simple rule. The bigger the animal is, the stronger is also the bite. Some exceptions can be, but in general it´s pretty easy to understand, that if one animal has twice as big head as another, bigger one bites stronger :)

Naturally shorter snout helps to get more power to canines/front teeth when biting. And naturally if we compare muscles of jaguar and leopard, it´s easy to understand, that jaguar has clearly stronger bite even when there are two same sized individuals overall.

Shadow, I totally agree with you. I just want to add that a larger brown bear and polar bear obviously will a stronger bite force than a smaller lion or tiger. A smilodon despite having canines that are suitable for giving skull bites have only the bite strength which is one third of a lion. An animal with stronger jaws does not mean the skull is stronger either. For example, there is a source which says that dingos skull can take more stress than that of a tasmanian tiger despite the latter having stronger jaws.

(11-05-2019, 09:10 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: Dunkleosteus is IMO, the king of the biters. 36 tonnes at the tip of the fang - that's insane for a fish weighing only about 4.7 tonnes!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061129094125.htm

To put that into perspective, this not only outclasses the bite forces of Tyrannosaurus rex (6 tonnes), Purussaurus (7 tonnes), Megalodon (18 tonnes) and Pliosaurus (24 tonnes), but it means Dunkleosteus is able to bite down with over 7.6 times its body weight! That's immense!

(11-05-2019, 09:27 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(11-05-2019, 09:10 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: Dunkleosteus is IMO, the king of the biters. 36 tonnes at the tip of the fang - that's insane for a fish weighing only about 4.7 tonnes!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061129094125.htm

To put that into perspective, this not only outclasses the bite forces of Tyrannosaurus rex (6 tonnes), Purussaurus (7 tonnes), Megalodon (18 tonnes) and Pliosaurus (24 tonnes), but it means Dunkleosteus is able to bite down with over 7.6 times its body weight! That's immense!

I understood, that comparable bite force was 11 000 lbs, 4989,5 kg.

Quote:
"November 29 reveals that the force of this predator's bite was remarkably powerful: 11,000 pounds. The bladed dentition focused the bite force into a small area, the fang tip, at an incredible force of 80,000 pounds per square inch."

Another quote: 
"The extinct fish had the strongest bite of any fish ever, and one of the strongest bites of any animal, rivaling the bites of large alligators and Tyrannosaurus rex."

So they don´t say, that it had stronger bite force than T-rex or other animals you mention. But it had strong force at the tip of the fang. If we could have same kind of numbers from these other animals, then that 80 000 lbs could be compared to those. 4,7 ton fish unlikely would have stronger muscles than bigger animals to bite. But when some force is concentrated to a very small area, values can be huge. Like a woman walking with normal shoes and then stepping on your toes, no big deal. But doing the same with high heels and with only heal, another story immediately even though same weight.

(11-05-2019, 09:29 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote:

(11-05-2019, 09:27 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(11-05-2019, 09:10 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: Dunkleosteus is IMO, the king of the biters. 36 tonnes at the tip of the fang - that's insane for a fish weighing only about 4.7 tonnes!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061129094125.htm

To put that into perspective, this not only outclasses the bite forces of Tyrannosaurus rex (6 tonnes), Purussaurus (7 tonnes), Megalodon (18 tonnes) and Pliosaurus (24 tonnes), but it means Dunkleosteus is able to bite down with over 7.6 times its body weight! That's immense!

I understood, that comparable bite force was 11 000 lbs, 4989,5 kg.

Quote:
"November 29 reveals that the force of this predator's bite was remarkably powerful: 11,000 pounds. The bladed dentition focused the bite force into a small area, the fang tip, at an incredible force of 80,000 pounds per square inch."

Another quote: 
"The extinct fish had the strongest bite of any fish ever, and one of the strongest bites of any animal, rivaling the bites of large alligators and Tyrannosaurus rex."

So they don´t say, that it had stronger bite force than T-rex or other animals you mention. But it had strong force at the tip of the fang. If we could have same kind of numbers from these other animals, then that 80 000 lbs could be compared to those. 4,7 ton fish unlikely would have stronger muscles than bigger animals to bite. But when some force is concentrated to a very small area, values can be huge. Like a woman walking with normal shoes and then stepping on your toes, no big deal. But doing the same with high heels and with only heal, another story immediately even though same weight.

Oh, sorry. I misworded my post.

Dunkleosteus bites PROPORTIONATELY harder than all those other animals. Only at the fang tip is it 36 tonnes.

(11-05-2019, 09:33 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(11-05-2019, 09:29 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote:

(11-05-2019, 09:27 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(11-05-2019, 09:10 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: Dunkleosteus is IMO, the king of the biters. 36 tonnes at the tip of the fang - that's insane for a fish weighing only about 4.7 tonnes!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061129094125.htm

To put that into perspective, this not only outclasses the bite forces of Tyrannosaurus rex (6 tonnes), Purussaurus (7 tonnes), Megalodon (18 tonnes) and Pliosaurus (24 tonnes), but it means Dunkleosteus is able to bite down with over 7.6 times its body weight! That's immense!

I understood, that comparable bite force was 11 000 lbs, 4989,5 kg.

Quote:
"November 29 reveals that the force of this predator's bite was remarkably powerful: 11,000 pounds. The bladed dentition focused the bite force into a small area, the fang tip, at an incredible force of 80,000 pounds per square inch."

Another quote: 
"The extinct fish had the strongest bite of any fish ever, and one of the strongest bites of any animal, rivaling the bites of large alligators and Tyrannosaurus rex."

So they don´t say, that it had stronger bite force than T-rex or other animals you mention. But it had strong force at the tip of the fang. If we could have same kind of numbers from these other animals, then that 80 000 lbs could be compared to those. 4,7 ton fish unlikely would have stronger muscles than bigger animals to bite. But when some force is concentrated to a very small area, values can be huge. Like a woman walking with normal shoes and then stepping on your toes, no big deal. But doing the same with high heels and with only heal, another story immediately even though same weight.

Oh, sorry. I misworded my post.

Dunkleosteus bites PROPORTIONATELY harder than all those other animals. Only at the fang tip is it 36 tonnes.

Do you have same kind of values of these other animals? 6 tonnes for T-rex sounds a bit shy? Or is that also from tip of the fangs? I have never looked too closely those values from prehistorical creatures.

(11-05-2019, 09:35 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote:

(11-05-2019, 09:33 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(11-05-2019, 09:29 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote:

(11-05-2019, 09:27 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(11-05-2019, 09:10 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: Dunkleosteus is IMO, the king of the biters. 36 tonnes at the tip of the fang - that's insane for a fish weighing only about 4.7 tonnes!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061129094125.htm

To put that into perspective, this not only outclasses the bite forces of Tyrannosaurus rex (6 tonnes), Purussaurus (7 tonnes), Megalodon (18 tonnes) and Pliosaurus (24 tonnes), but it means Dunkleosteus is able to bite down with over 7.6 times its body weight! That's immense!

I understood, that comparable bite force was 11 000 lbs, 4989,5 kg.

Quote:
"November 29 reveals that the force of this predator's bite was remarkably powerful: 11,000 pounds. The bladed dentition focused the bite force into a small area, the fang tip, at an incredible force of 80,000 pounds per square inch."

Another quote: 
"The extinct fish had the strongest bite of any fish ever, and one of the strongest bites of any animal, rivaling the bites of large alligators and Tyrannosaurus rex."

So they don´t say, that it had stronger bite force than T-rex or other animals you mention. But it had strong force at the tip of the fang. If we could have same kind of numbers from these other animals, then that 80 000 lbs could be compared to those. 4,7 ton fish unlikely would have stronger muscles than bigger animals to bite. But when some force is concentrated to a very small area, values can be huge. Like a woman walking with normal shoes and then stepping on your toes, no big deal. But doing the same with high heels and with only heal, another story immediately even though same weight.

Oh, sorry. I misworded my post.

Dunkleosteus bites PROPORTIONATELY harder than all those other animals. Only at the fang tip is it 36 tonnes.

Do you have same kind of values of these other animals? 6 tonnes for T-rex sounds a bit shy? Or is that also from tip of the fangs? I have never looked too closely those values from prehistorical creatures.

I am not too sure either. Let's see if I can find anything, maybe from The World of Animals.

(11-05-2019, 09:45 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: Well, to be perfectly honest, I'm not all that surprised about Dunkleosteus outclassing T rex - the weights are relatively close, and much closer than some of the others.
Megalodon and Pliosaurus are the most shocking